About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
for college education as well. >> dealing with the mortgage interest deduction would hurt the middle class. >> if you take it in isolation. it depends how you balance it off. the rubric for us is, in has to be balanced. it has to be fair. it has to be comprehensive. it should be on the table to be discussed. we do not think that randomly you can pick things out, without understanding the unintended consequences that would provide. >> on the mortgage interest deduction -- i have a bill setting out there, trying to garner some republican support, that takes away the mortgage interest deduction for yachts that count as second homes. mr. larsen is talking about a schoolteacher trying to make sure it is affordable to buy a home, while there is a mortgage interest deduction available to people who buy yachts. that is coming from the person who represents the land of 10,000 lakes. i do not see a yacht in minnesota. that is the type of reform we are talking about. instead of signing on for that, they come to the middle class. that is where the frustration and fairness lies. >> we have heard from y
. it calls for the end of the chronic inequalities in our education system. it promotes economic growth from free enterprise because nothing has done more to lift people everywhere out of poverty. of all people i have ever known, jack kemp did more to personify and personalize this message. every problem does not to support -- disappear from the workings of the free market alone. i would love to say if we just went on the gold standard, it would all be settled. [laughter] americans are compassionate people. there is a consensus in this country about our obligations to the most vulnerable. those obligations are beyond dispute. the real debate is how best we can meet them. it is whether they are better met by private groups or government, voluntary action or government action. the truth is, there has to be a balance between the two. government must ask for the common good while leaving private groups free to do the work only they can do. there is a vast middle ground between the government and the individual. our families and our neighborhoods. the groups we joined and the places of worship. t
, and even though you can quickly get to it, it was a two-year process. of educating not only the public but the members involved. i would argue that the interest groups embedded in tax expenditures are even stronger today. it is not just about the guys who want to go sailing or play golf. they have tv ads running, grass-roots operations out there. >> but there is one thing else. in 1986, there were no cellphones. they had to find a wired telephone to call, and by the time they had done that, it was already passed. >> this is very hard to do. as bill outlined earlier, you can see where the groups are lining up. the easiest thing they can bring about is gridlock and doing nothing. i am a firm believer if we go back to the committee system we can actually do more in having these kinds of general discussions, because as will marshall said, it will take a blend of policies, some rate changes, some base broadening, but let's see what the traffic will bear, but the political environment, the culture on the hill will accommodate. >> dave camp and sander levin cut a deal? >> begin the process an
to be buying, including social security, including medicare, including investment in education, including investment in infrastructure, including investment in innovation to grow our economy which in turn will help our deficit situation as the economy grows. without raising any taxes. but the fact of the matter is i know the gentleman has historically not felt tax cuts should be paid for either by reducing it or offsetting. the president doesn't agree with the $800 billion because he doesn't think the math works. i share the president's view. the math doesn't work. the most useful effort will be if we all agree on the onive -- objective, whether it's $4 trillion, whether it's 70% debt to g.d.p. ratio which most economists or a little less than that is sustainable or is on a sustainable path. if we all agree with the objective and then, mr. majority leader, simply make the math work to get there on a way that we could agree on, i think america would be advantaged, the economy would be advantaged and we'd see a renaissance of job creation in this country as we did in the 2000's. and i'll be
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)